And here's another prediction, Anderson won't even be charged

[cboy4]

with contempt for refusing to testify.

The smart, intelligent judge .. who threw out the government's purported "mountain of evidence," is clearly pissed off at the prosecution.





The prosecutors would presumably want Anderson to refuse to testify in the presence of the jury and hope that it sends a message and raises questions about why he will not talk about Bonds. Anderson’s refusal to testify could then set off a chain of events in which he conceivably would be taken away by authorities for contempt while the jury is watching.

The judge in the case, United States District Judge Susan Illston, appeared to side with Bonds’s lawyers on the Anderson issue and indicated she wanted him questioned before the trial begins, so it can be determined at that point if he will testify. :thumbsup:

During Tuesday’s hearing, Illston appeared frustrated with the government’s continued efforts to get Anderson to testify. She uncharacteristically raised her voice when she asked the assistant United States attorney Matt Parrella if he could find a case “where someone was put in prison for a year” then released, refused to testify at trial “and is jailed again.”

“Have you ever found that?” she asked.

When Parrella said he knew of no such example, the judge responded: “Neither have I.” :spray:

OUCH!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/sports/baseball/18bonds.html?ref=sports

[TZ]

1. Pissed off enough TO IGNORE THE LAW?

We shall see. Judges have to ignore personal feelings. The fact is if the prosecution feels Anderson is an important witness and he won't testify, thats contempt of court and to ignore that basically undermines the courts authority. Something most Judges are reluctant to do. Its not uncommon for Judges to do what is lawful, even if its NOT their personal beliefs. But since your knowledge of law seems to be based on kissing Barry's ass, I doubt you can evaluate objectively.

[cboy4]

2. No, my knowledge of law is based on knowledge of law.

Throwing someone in prison a second time for refusing to get involved in a case where he would testify against a childhood friend is grossly excessive.

He already served one year in prison. That's very telling that we're dealing with a man who's made up his mind.

The prosecution should concede that Anderson is a lost cause, and move on.

That's why the judge is angry. Because they're not doing that.

It's apparently not common for a attorneys to badger a clearly unwilling witness.

[PRETZEL]

3. From my take of the article,

it's not that the judge doesn't want Anderson to comply, it's the methods that the prosecution are using to compel either testimony or contempt. I think that's her issue, not of the relevance of the tesitmony nor of the personal relationship between Bonds and Anderson.

If Anderson is refusing to comply with a court ordered subpoena then it's a no brainer. He has to show cause as to why the subpoena should be quashed or he needs to testify. If the prosecution hasn't subpoenaed Anderson, then the prosecution should be held accountable. They've apparently gotten his records through the proper channels, why haven't they then gone the proper channels to compel testimony.

Either way, Anderson isn't a good witness for either the prosecution nor the defense. He would have major credibility issues since he's already been convicted (and jailed) for distribution of steroids. It's his personal records the prosection wants and his corraboration of those records.

[cboy4]

4. Good summary.

And yes:

"It's his personal records the prosection wants and his corraboration of those records."

So true.

[PRETZEL]

5. I'd be interested in knowing if the government has subpoenaed

Anderson for testimony at trial. If he hasn't they should be shot.

The year he spent in prison was for refusing to obey a grand jury subpoena. Once the GJ handed up their indictments, my guess would be that any subpoena outstanding would be unenforceable, thus Anderson being released from prison.

I think Anderson knows he's in a no-win situation. If he's forced to go before the judge he'll either bury Bonds, or risk facing his own perjury and obstruction charges since the documents were taken from his house.

My own personal guess is that the judge would not be too happy if Anderson doesn't appear in her chambers before the trial starts but at the same time, I don't think she'll let the prosection make him take the stand without knowing what he'll say.

[cboy4]

6. Yea, he has been subpoenaed...otherwise there would be

no reason for him to worry about testifying.

And I believe Anderson will honor the judge's request to appear so he can say he will be respectfully declining to testify.

Or maybe his attorney will be appearing for him.

At any rate, he's not going to blow off the judge at this point, because he knows she may be leaning against ruling him in contempt .. and she's already destroyed the government's phony case.

He'll put on his best school boy charm and appear tomorrow.

But he won't be coming with good news for the court.

[PRETZEL]

7. I think we may disagree a little on some of the points,

there has to be a very good reason for him not to honor the subpoena. If he (or his attorney) goes before the judge and tells her that he is refusing to testify then she's going to want a real good reason why. If she doesn't buy it, I don't think she'll have any other choice than to order him in contempt. I think her issues were more of what she felt were backdoor methods to get the documents in that the prosecution used, not the documents themselves.

If Anderson goes in to the judge and tells her that he has no knowledge of those documents nor as to how they got into his house you can bet your bottom dollar that Bonds' defense team will move right then and there to have them introduced as defense exhibits since they then become exculpatory. The prosecution would have no say in the matter. But that also opens the door for them to be cross examined which is something that the defense may not want either.

I think it's a tough call. If Anderson tells the judge he's not testifying (which would basically amount to pleading the 5th) then I think he's in for more trouble.

[cboy4]

8. Well of course there's no such thing as the 5th amendment

when it comes to testifying as a witness, otherwise Anderson could just do that.

Only Barry has that option of refusing to testify against himself.

But yea, we disagree on the interpretation of the judge's anger.

I read it as though she's irritated with the government wasting everyone's time going after someone who is clearly not going to testify.

She's angry that their building their entire case around someone who is not going to show up.

That's the way I read it, but who knows, she could throw him in prison again, depending on what goes down.

But his prison time *would* only last for the length of the trial .. it won't be another year.

[PRETZEL]

9. And that's where I think Anderson's dilema lies,

he can't refuse to testify without a valid, legal basis. The trial judge can't simply ignore that fact less she risk her ruling being overturned which is something I tend to think she wouldn't do.

If Anderson's testimony is as exculpatory as one believes then his unwillingness to come forth to refute the validity of the documents found either in his home or otherwise is very puzzling. If he wants to clear his friend, shouldn't he be jumping at the chance? Better yet, why isn't the defense pushing him to testify? I agree that they don't have to, but this would have never gone to trial if Anderson's testimony in the grand jury would have provided evidence that Bonds did not perjure himself in whether or not he knew he was taking a banned substance that he was getting from Balco and Anderson. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that at one time Bonds didn't know that the stuff he was getting from Anderson had a banned substance in it. I think that's very possible. But I also think that Bonds did find out about it. It's a question of when and what he did after finding out. Anderson holds the key as to when Bonds knew.

As I've mentioned before, I think Anderson's in a no-win situation here. Refusing to testify puts him in more legal trouble and testifying may possibly lead to Bonds being found guilty.

As for the judge, I think she's more irrated at the government's methods more than anything.

[cboy4]

10. As I've stated, number one, Anderson is not getting involved

based on principle.

Why would he cave now after spending a year in prison for not wanting to get involved in testifying against his good friend?

Secondly, he knows if he testifies, the government can introduce that discovery because they'll be able to examine Anderson, and it no longer becomes a hearsay situation.

He obviously feels that evidence is crucial, either because it's factual *or* he feels a jury will be mistaken by prosecution hyperbole about "evidence" that doesn't show Bonds used steroids.

I can't read his mind about that, but I do know that's the prime reason right now he will not be testifying.

It's a smart legal move, and it's one that in my opinion, has doomed the government's case.

[PRETZEL]

11. And you may well be right,

if he's willing to face another round of contempt charges then good for him. I have no problems with that at all if that's what he's chosing to do. But in my opinion, I think the government would most certainly press for contempt charges and they may very well have a good case for it. If he's doing it,as you think, that the evidence is either damaging or potentially misleading, I don't think that's his call to make. That's up to the prosecution to make it damaging and to the defense to poke the holes in that evidence. That's not up to Greg Anderson to decide.

Again, this seems to be what Anderson is willing to do. If he's doing it on principle, good for him. I'm sure he understands that there may well be other legal issues he'll have to deal with as a result.